The future of attack helicopters????

kitplane01 · Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:21 pm

"In the eight months since launching its all-out invasion of Ukraine, Russia has lost more than a quarter of its total in-service fleet of Ka-52 Alligator attack helicopters sent to Ukraine for the war, ... At least 23 of Russia’s Ka-52 Alligator helicopters have been shot down or lost since the Feb. 24 invasion"

How do you feel about the future of the modern attack helicopter?

I don't think the answer can be "fight at increasing range". Manpads can increase their range too, and increasing range probably helps hide targets on the ground much more than targets in the sky.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/u ... -massacred

9MMPQ · Wed Oct 26, 2022 6:13 pm

Like all things on the battlefield everything has its place. The modern attack helicopter certainly has a role to play.

The issue here is that the Russian military hardly coordinate the operations of its military branches so that each, left to its own devices, becomes more vulnerable and ultimately is weaker for it. Several of the documented shootdowns show cases of single or dual pairs of helicopters operating beyond the lines of Russian infantry without any other supporting elements and sometimes at very questionable altitudes when manpads can & should be considered to be in the area.

Another point is the training of Russian pilots which Western militaries have many times concluded are behind levels in the West with Russians making far less flying hours, having fewer training excersices and less focus on joint cooperation with the other brances of the military. The combination of these factors makes a toxic recipe which extracts more sacrifices of manpower & equipment in the theatre of operations.

The other Russian branches on the ground in Ukraine show quite a similar story. Armoured personnel carriers & tanks operating without infantry support, leaving them as easier targets for Ukrainian infantry. Russian infantry complaining of seeing no significant artillery or air support on their frontlines & even being hit by their own side when there is support in the area as there is little coordination between them. In Russian millitary history it seems a recurring issues to which the usual answer is to put more bodies to work to make up for higher losses. The Ukrainians on the other hand have spent several years learning from & training with Western militaries and are putting into practice the combined application of their forces in joint operations. This & the many ways the war can be shared online nowadays only highlights the Russian shortcomings even more.

flyingturtle · Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:05 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
"In the eight months since launching its all-out invasion of Ukraine, Russia has lost more than a quarter of its total in-service fleet of Ka-52 Alligator attack helicopters sent to Ukraine for the war, ... At least 23 of Russia’s Ka-52 Alligator helicopters have been shot down or lost since the Feb. 24 invasion"

As previously mentioned, the Russian misadventure in Ukraine is a bad example. Likewise, the T-72 tank in Ukrainian hands is not a bad one. In the large majority of the videos showing Russian T-72s losing the turret under high levels of stress, you can't see Russian infantry and their protective screen.

It's something that is hammered into every chess novice: All pieces must support each other.......................................................................

texl1649 · Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:42 pm

As per above, we can’t discount everything Russian-built/designed from the AK-47 on up based on their disaster in Ukraine. Tactics, training, and planning all play at least as great a role in the tremendous failures there.

RJMAZ · Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:56 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
How do you feel about the future of the modern attack helicopter?

The future looks excellent. The attack helicopter is fast becoming the most survivable platform on the battlefield which is why the US is investing so much money. Militaries around the world are placing large orders of attack helicopters.

Do you remember the Vietnam war? This helps put things into perspective.

According to the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association, a total of 11,846 helicopters were shot down or crashed during the war, resulting in nearly 5,000 American pilots and crew killed. Of those servicepeople, 2,382 were killed while serving aboard UH-1 Iroquois, better known as the ubiquitous “Huey.”

https://www.vietnamwar50th.com/educatio ... f_june_13/

Europe needs as many attack helicopters as they can get. There is only one attack helicopter that has been updated with the latest missile warning, missile decoy systsms and terrain following systems. Only one has a radar that can detect modern threats such as drones. Australia, India, UK, Poland and Qatar are all waiting for their Apache orders.

Attack helicopters will soon get active protection against MANPADS in the form of a small laser to blind the missile sensor. Most can already survive small arms fire. This makes a highly survivable platform. If you are flying 200+km/h at 50 feet above the ground ground forces only have a couple seconds to see and shoot the helicopter.

If we look at the Russian helicopters they do not even have missile warning systems. They don't even get a chance to use countermeasures. They also lack terrain following systems so they are flying at 200 feet during the day like a sitting duck. This gives ground forces 30 seconds to launch a MANPAD.

kitplane01 · Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:16 am

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
How do you feel about the future of the modern attack helicopter?

The future looks excellent. The attack helicopter is fast becoming the most survivable platform on the battlefield which is why the US is investing so much money. Militaries around the world are placing large orders of attack helicopters.

More survivable than the tank? A tank with active armor?

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Do you remember the Vietnam war? This helps put things into perspective.

No. I'm just not that old. That war was about 2.5 generations ago. A war without manpads, against an non-peer enemy. A war without ubiquitous networking, and very few CPUs. A war with near-zero drones.

kitplane01 · Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:20 am

How were losses of western Helicopters in Afghanistan and Iraq?

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:49 am

kitplane01 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
How do you feel about the future of the modern attack helicopter?

The future looks excellent. The attack helicopter is fast becoming the most survivable platform on the battlefield which is why the US is investing so much money. Militaries around the world are placing large orders of attack helicopters.

More survivable than the tank? A tank with active armor?

More survivable than any tank without trained infantry support

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Do you remember the Vietnam war? This helps put things into perspective.

No. I'm just not that old. That war was about 2.5 generations ago. A war without manpads, against an non-peer enemy. A war without ubiquitous networking, and very few CPUs. A war with near-zero drones.

MANPADS weren’t what shot down helicopters, old fashioned riflemen did the it. Every enemy is a peer, if they want to be. Ask Russian last January if they considered UKR a peer? Ask them now.

kitplane01 · Thu Oct 27, 2022 2:14 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
MANPADS weren’t what shot down helicopters, old fashioned riflemen did the it.

Manpads are clearly shooting down Russian helicopters. Several examples are available on Youtube.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Every enemy is a peer, if they want to be. Ask Russian last January if they considered UKR a peer? Ask them now.

Peer advisory: Has equipment at about the same technology level, and a force of about the same size.

Not every enemy is a peer. The Vietnamese military was not a peer to the US military because they didn't have the same level of technology. Even if they wanted it, they could not get it. The Afghani military was not a peer to the US military. They just didn't have enough fighters jets to qualify.

Of course one can lose to a non-peer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

As to the Ukraine being a peer of Russia ... that's surprisingly hard. They clearly don't have the fast-jet capability of Russia, but have enough manpads and drones and such to make the comparison complex.

RJMAZ · Thu Oct 27, 2022 2:22 am

kitplane01 wrote:
More survivable than the tank? A tank with active armor?

Definitely more survivable than a tank. A pair of F-35 with small diameter bomb and you have a whole tank.comvoy missing their turrets.

kitplane01 wrote:
No. I'm just not that old. That war was about 2.5 generations ago. A war without manpads, against an non-peer enemy.

No manpads and not a "near peer" yet 11,846 helicopters shot down.

Now we have Ukraine with an unlimited number of manpads and we only have a dozen Russian helicopters shot down.

Notice the trend. The offensive systems are now beating the defensive systems.

Basic small arms were taking down aircraft in Vietnam. The Apache used the lessons from Vietnam. Make it immune from small arms and 99% of the threat is eliminated. The biggest threat to Apache is crashing into the ground during training.

kitplane01 wrote:
I would think flying Hueys and A-1s over a battlefield against a peer enemy in 2022 is probably quick suicide.

It would be quick suicide. No armour, no standoff capability, no terrain following systems. Sitting ducks at 200 feet.

That's why everyone is buying Apache and F-35.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Oct 27, 2022 2:30 am

kitplane01 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
MANPADS weren’t what shot down helicopters, old fashioned riflemen did the it.

Manpads are clearly shooting down Russian helicopters. Several examples are available on Youtube.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Every enemy is a peer, if they want to be. Ask Russian last January if they considered UKR a peer? Ask them now.

Peer advisory: Has equipment at about the same technology level, and a force of about the same size.

Not every enemy is a peer. The Vietnamese military was not a peer to the US military because they didn't have the same level of technology. Even if they wanted it, they could not get it. The Afghani military was not a peer to the US military. They just didn't have enough fighters jets to qualify.

Of course one can lose to a non-peer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

As to the Ukraine being a peer of Russia ... that's surprisingly hard. They clearly don't have the fast-jet capability of Russia, but have enough manpads and drones and such to make the comparison complex.

I was referring to Vietnam helicopter shoot downs. Technology or access to it doesn’t alone describe peers. That is a armchair view, not reality. Most wars were won by the non-peer—Britain v. France during Napoleonic wars, America v. Britain during Revolution and 1812; Afghan and Vietnam v. US. Now, one can argue militarily the US dominated both Vietnam and Afghanistan militarily but lost politically.

petertenthije · Thu Oct 27, 2022 6:10 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Now we have Ukraine with an unlimited number of manpads and we only have a dozen Russian helicopters shot down.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... e32b2f1879
Russia has lost 52 of its own, higher-flying helicopters. (…) the gunship crews face extreme risk … and a shockingly short life expectancy.

The article is specifically referring to shootdowns, not to losses on the ground due to artillery, missiles or commandos.

Another gem:

https://kyivindependent.com/uncategoriz ... 18-minutes
Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile units shot down at least four Russian attack helicopters (presumably Ka-52) in southern Ukraine from 8:40 a.m. to 8:58 a.m. on Oct. 12, Ukraine’s Air Force reported. Ukraine was trying to hit two more Russian helicopters, which means the number of confirmed downed helicopters may increase, according to the military.

RJMAZ · Thu Oct 27, 2022 6:28 am

Let's look at the attack helicopters in production.

AH-64E Apache
AH-1Z Viper
Eurocopter Tiger
TAI/AgustaWestland T129 ATAK
Harbin Z-19
CAIC Z-10
Mi-28
Kamov Ka-50

Let's look at the attack helicopters under development.
Leonardo AW249
Bell 360 Invictus
Sikorsky Raider X
HAL Prachand
TAI T629
T929 ATAK 2

It looks like every country wants to give some pilots a "quick suicide".

RJMAZ · Thu Oct 27, 2022 6:42 am

petertenthije wrote:
Meanwhile, in the real world:
Russia has lost 52 of its own, higher-flying helicopters. (…) the gunship crews face extreme risk … and a shockingly short life expectancy.

I remember the Russian combat losses being posted by Ukraine in the first 2 weeks of the war. The person fabricating the numbers soon had to reduce the rate of the daily losses as the war continued. If they kept fabricating combat losses at such a high rate Russia would have lost a millions of helicopters and tanks by now.

The high Russian losses massively improved recruitment for soldiers in Ukraine. So it served a good purpose. Now they have lost credibility as a source like the Iraqi minister of information. I loved seeing that man on TV as a kid and he became an internet celebrity.

I wish I screenshotted all of the official Ukraine combat stat's in the first week. Dozens of Russian helicopters were lost in the first week. Yet now it's only 52.

kitplane01 · Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:36 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Every enemy is a peer, if they want to be.

kitplane01 wrote:
Peer advisory: Has equipment at about the same technology level, and a force of about the same size.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Technology or access to it doesn’t alone describe peers. That is a armchair view, not reality.

I think the definition of "near peer" in military terms is what I said.

I didn't say non-near-peer advisaries are weak. In fact, the Vietnamese army was quite strong, but it was not a peer in this technical sense of the term.

The Chinese army of 1955 would not have been a pear of the United States. It might have been stronger (or not) but it's technology was nothing like what the US army had.

kitplane01 · Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:38 am

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
More survivable than the tank? A tank with active armor?

Definitely more survivable than a tank. A pair of F-35 with small diameter bomb and you have a whole tank.comvoy missing their turrets.

A pair of F-35s easily kills tanks. It also easily kills helicopters. And it detects helicopters in the air much easier than tanks hiding under a tree.

kitplane01 · Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:41 am

RJMAZ wrote:
petertenthije wrote:
Meanwhile, in the real world:
Russia has lost 52 of its own, higher-flying helicopters. (…) the gunship crews face extreme risk … and a shockingly short life expectancy.

I remember the Russian combat losses being posted by Ukraine in the first 2 weeks of the war. The person fabricating the numbers soon had to reduce the rate of the daily losses as the war continued. If they kept fabricating combat losses at such a high rate Russia would have lost a millions of helicopters and tanks by now.

The high Russian losses massively improved recruitment for soldiers in Ukraine. So it served a good purpose. Now they have lost credibility as a source like the Iraqi minister of information. I loved seeing that man on TV as a kid and he became an internet celebrity.

I wish I screenshotted all of the official Ukraine combat stat's in the first week. Dozens of Russian helicopters were lost in the first week. Yet now it's only 52.

From the article ...

At least 23 of Russia’s Ka-52 Alligator helicopters have been shot down or lost since the Feb. 24 invasion, the U.K. MoD assesses.

Those numbers line up with Oryx, an independent researcher that tracks visually confirmed equipment losses of the war. The site counts a total of 54 Russian helicopter losses since February. Of those, 23 are Ka-52s. Also on the list are 12 Mi-8 Hip transport helicopters, three Mi-24 and five Mi-35 Hind attack helicopters, six Mi-28 Havoc attack helicopters, and five unknown rotorcraft. ... Once again, these are confirmed losses, there are likely more that cannot be visually confirmed and this does not account for battle-damaged machines that are no longer combat-viable.

RJMAZ · Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:28 am

kitplane01 wrote:
A pair of F-35s easily kills tanks. It also easily kills helicopters. And it detects helicopters in the air much easier than tanks hiding under a tree.

The tanks wouldn't even know the F-35 has dropped bombs. They won't be hiding under a tree.

The Apache would detect the missile launch and the direction. The incoming missile would be flying from high altitude into ground clutter making it hard for the seeker. A missile flying at 3,000km/h takes a full minute to fly 50km. The Apache in under 10 seconds can drop down behind trees or a building. The Apache can also deploy chaff or flares. The Apache exhaust fires up into the main rotor so the heat signature is very low.

If the Apache knew that enemy fighters were on their way they can fly towards friendly air cover or SAM bubble at 300km/h.

But yes a 50 year old helicopter would be killed as easily as a tank. It wouldn't even know a missile was launched until they exploded in the air.

Kiwirob · Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:50 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
MANPADS weren’t what shot down helicopters, old fashioned riflemen did the it.

Manpads are clearly shooting down Russian helicopters. Several examples are available on Youtube.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Every enemy is a peer, if they want to be. Ask Russian last January if they considered UKR a peer? Ask them now.

Peer advisory: Has equipment at about the same technology level, and a force of about the same size.

Not every enemy is a peer. The Vietnamese military was not a peer to the US military because they didn't have the same level of technology. Even if they wanted it, they could not get it. The Afghani military was not a peer to the US military. They just didn't have enough fighters jets to qualify.

Of course one can lose to a non-peer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

As to the Ukraine being a peer of Russia ... that's surprisingly hard. They clearly don't have the fast-jet capability of Russia, but have enough manpads and drones and such to make the comparison complex.

I was referring to Vietnam helicopter shoot downs. Technology or access to it doesn’t alone describe peers. That is a armchair view, not reality. Most wars were won by the non-peer—Britain v. France during Napoleonic wars, America v. Britain during Revolution and 1812; Afghan and Vietnam v. US. Now, one can argue militarily the US dominated both Vietnam and Afghanistan militarily but lost politically.

How can you say Britain and France were't peer enemies? They have been peer enemies since 1066.

GDB · Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:45 am

Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Manpads are clearly shooting down Russian helicopters. Several examples are available on Youtube.

Peer advisory: Has equipment at about the same technology level, and a force of about the same size.

Not every enemy is a peer. The Vietnamese military was not a peer to the US military because they didn't have the same level of technology. Even if they wanted it, they could not get it. The Afghani military was not a peer to the US military. They just didn't have enough fighters jets to qualify.

Of course one can lose to a non-peer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

As to the Ukraine being a peer of Russia ... that's surprisingly hard. They clearly don't have the fast-jet capability of Russia, but have enough manpads and drones and such to make the comparison complex.

I was referring to Vietnam helicopter shoot downs. Technology or access to it doesn’t alone describe peers. That is a armchair view, not reality. Most wars were won by the non-peer—Britain v. France during Napoleonic wars, America v. Britain during Revolution and 1812; Afghan and Vietnam v. US. Now, one can argue militarily the US dominated both Vietnam and Afghanistan militarily but lost politically.

How can you say Britain and France were't peer enemies? They have been peer enemies since 1066.

But allies since 1904, not that parts of the UK media would have it though.

To the topic, posted on the Ukraine thread in Non Av when it was released, might be worth a re look, it is in depth though;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoKpXvj41A

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Oct 27, 2022 2:17 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Manpads are clearly shooting down Russian helicopters. Several examples are available on Youtube.

Peer advisory: Has equipment at about the same technology level, and a force of about the same size.

Not every enemy is a peer. The Vietnamese military was not a peer to the US military because they didn't have the same level of technology. Even if they wanted it, they could not get it. The Afghani military was not a peer to the US military. They just didn't have enough fighters jets to qualify.

Of course one can lose to a non-peer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

As to the Ukraine being a peer of Russia ... that's surprisingly hard. They clearly don't have the fast-jet capability of Russia, but have enough manpads and drones and such to make the comparison complex.

I was referring to Vietnam helicopter shoot downs. Technology or access to it doesn’t alone describe peers. That is a armchair view, not reality. Most wars were won by the non-peer—Britain v. France during Napoleonic wars, America v. Britain during Revolution and 1812; Afghan and Vietnam v. US. Now, one can argue militarily the US dominated both Vietnam and Afghanistan militarily but lost politically.

How can you say Britain and France were't peer enemies? They have been peer enemies since 1066.

Britain always, prior to the 20th C, had a much smaller population, thus much smaller armies. They’ve been enemies, but in most wars, Britain started out with at a significant disadvantage, like 6:1 at Agincourt. British diplomacy was its big advantage by assembling coalitions against France. See the 18th century, 2nd Hundred Years War against France.

johns624 · Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:31 pm

The British Empire put its money into the Royal Navy.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Oct 27, 2022 4:48 pm

johns624 wrote:
The British Empire put its money into the Royal Navy.

True, but even at Trafalger it was at a pretty serious numerical disadvantage.

My argument is the entire “peer” or “non-peer” idea is false because a lot more dictates combat outcomes than counting technology. And all of it is very hard to assess prior to the balloon goes up, which is why the balloon goes up-each side misjudges their opponents

kitplane01 · Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:56 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Manpads are clearly shooting down Russian helicopters. Several examples are available on Youtube.

Peer advisory: Has equipment at about the same technology level, and a force of about the same size.

Not every enemy is a peer. The Vietnamese military was not a peer to the US military because they didn't have the same level of technology. Even if they wanted it, they could not get it. The Afghani military was not a peer to the US military. They just didn't have enough fighters jets to qualify.

Of course one can lose to a non-peer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

As to the Ukraine being a peer of Russia ... that's surprisingly hard. They clearly don't have the fast-jet capability of Russia, but have enough manpads and drones and such to make the comparison complex.

For most of the last 1000 years, the UK and France when they were enemies have been peer enemies.

I was referring to Vietnam helicopter shoot downs. Technology or access to it doesn’t alone describe peers. That is a armchair view, not reality. Most wars were won by the non-peer—Britain v. France during Napoleonic wars, America v. Britain during Revolution and 1812; Afghan and Vietnam v. US. Now, one can argue militarily the US dominated both Vietnam and Afghanistan militarily but lost politically.

How can you say Britain and France were't peer enemies? They have been peer enemies since 1066.

kitplane01 · Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:59 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
johns624 wrote:
The British Empire put its money into the Royal Navy.

True, but even at Trafalger it was at a pretty serious numerical disadvantage.

My argument is the entire “peer” or “non-peer” idea is false because a lot more dictates combat outcomes than counting technology. And all of it is very hard to assess prior to the balloon goes up, which is why the balloon goes up-each side misjudges their opponents

A lot more *does* dictate combat outcomes than technology. I believe this has already been discussed, in this thread, this week.

If two enemies are 'peers' then they likely *can* fight in the same way (but don't have to). If the UK and France go to war next week, the techniques of each will likely look somewhat similar. Meanwhile, when the US went to war with Vietnam, the two sides had to use different techniques because they had different capabilities.

'Peer' is about what you can do, not who will win.

mxaxai · Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:03 pm

GDB wrote:
But allies since 1904, not that parts of the UK media would have it though.

Even politically, apparently, any remaining ties post-Brexit are being carefully examined. https://spacenews.com/uk-defense-commit ... eb-review/

UK defense committee calls for thorough Eutelsat/OneWeb review

Eutelsat and OneWeb’s planned merger requires the “strictest possible scrutiny,” a cross-party group of British government officials said in a report warning the U.K has become a “third-rank” power in space post-Brexit.
Combining U.K.-based OneWeb with France’s Eutelsat poses “serious questions about the handing over of critical technology to foreign powers and the need for sovereignty,” said Tobias Ellwood, chair of the U.K’s Defence Select Committee.
...
However, despite spending tens of millions of dollars on exploring options over the last several years, Ellwood said the U.K. is no closer to developing a replacement PNT (Position, Navigation, Timing) network.
He added: “Over this inquiry we heard that the UK is, at best, a third-rank space power, lagging behind Italy."

France has become "a foreign power" that one must compete against, not cooperate with.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:19 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
johns624 wrote:
The British Empire put its money into the Royal Navy.

True, but even at Trafalger it was at a pretty serious numerical disadvantage.

My argument is the entire “peer” or “non-peer” idea is false because a lot more dictates combat outcomes than counting technology. And all of it is very hard to assess prior to the balloon goes up, which is why the balloon goes up-each side misjudges their opponents

A lot more *does* dictate combat outcomes than technology. I believe this has already been discussed, in this thread, this week.

If two enemies are 'peers' then they likely *can* fight in the same way (but don't have to). If the UK and France go to war next week, the techniques of each will likely look somewhat similar. Meanwhile, when the US went to war with Vietnam, the two sides had to use different techniques because they had different capabilities.

'Peer' is about what you can do, not who will win.

At the beginning of 2022, many would have considered Russia and NATO to be peers, no one thinks that now. It’s a very nebulous idea.

johns624 · Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:27 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

At the beginning of 2022, many would have considered Russia and NATO to be peers, no one thinks that now. It’s a very nebulous idea.

Even NATO without the US could handle Russia now.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:57 pm

johns624 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

At the beginning of 2022, many would have considered Russia and NATO to be peers, no one thinks that now. It’s a very nebulous idea.
Even NATO without the US could handle Russia now.

Maybe…

johns624 · Fri Oct 28, 2022 12:26 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
johns624 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

At the beginning of 2022, many would have considered Russia and NATO to be peers, no one thinks that now. It’s a very nebulous idea.
Even NATO without the US could handle Russia now.

Maybe…

Their air forces--yes. Their navies--maybe. Their armies--probably not.

johns624 · Fri Oct 28, 2022 1:10 am

johns624 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Even NATO without the US could handle Russia now.

Maybe…
Their air forces--yes. Their navies--maybe. Their armies--probably not.

Too late to edit, so here it is...
air forces---yes. navies...probably. armies---maybe. The inclusion of Sweden and Finland added a bunch of MBTs, which many EU militaries have let dwindle.

kitplane01 · Fri Oct 28, 2022 1:32 am

johns624 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Even NATO without the US could handle Russia now.

Maybe…
Their air forces--yes. Their navies--maybe. Their armies--probably not.

The Ukrainian army can fight the Russian army to a standstill. I would expect our army has more capabilities than the Ukrainian one.

Vintage · Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:58 am

I would imagine that the Norwegians and Swedes could make it all the way to the Urals by themselves with the Russian army tied down in Ukraine.

Kiwirob · Fri Oct 28, 2022 9:04 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I was referring to Vietnam helicopter shoot downs. Technology or access to it doesn’t alone describe peers. That is a armchair view, not reality. Most wars were won by the non-peer—Britain v. France during Napoleonic wars, America v. Britain during Revolution and 1812; Afghan and Vietnam v. US. Now, one can argue militarily the US dominated both Vietnam and Afghanistan militarily but lost politically.

How can you say Britain and France were't peer enemies? They have been peer enemies since 1066.

Britain always, prior to the 20th C, had a much smaller population, thus much smaller armies. They’ve been enemies, but in most wars, Britain started out with at a significant disadvantage, like 6:1 at Agincourt. British diplomacy was its big advantage by assembling coalitions against France. See the 18th century, 2nd Hundred Years War against France.

At Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415) the English had the technological advantage over the French in all these battles, the longbow was a superior weapon to the French mounted knights and mercenary crossbowmen from Genoa.

Kiwirob · Fri Oct 28, 2022 9:09 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
johns624 wrote:
The British Empire put its money into the Royal Navy.

True, but even at Trafalger it was at a pretty serious numerical disadvantage.

My argument is the entire “peer” or “non-peer” idea is false because a lot more dictates combat outcomes than counting technology. And all of it is very hard to assess prior to the balloon goes up, which is why the balloon goes up-each side misjudges their opponents

How were the Briitish at a disadvantage at Trafalgar, Nelson was slightly outnumbered, with 27 British ships of the line to 33 of the combined French and Spanish navies, but the Royal Navy were better trained and Nelson was the superior commander. The RN dominated the conflict.

johns624 · Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:47 am

kitplane01 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Maybe…
Their air forces--yes. Their navies--maybe. Their armies--probably not.

The Ukrainian army can fight the Russian army to a standstill. I would expect our army has more capabilities than the Ukrainian one.

Did you miss the part "without the US"?

kitplane01 · Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:50 pm

johns624 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Their air forces--yes. Their navies--maybe. Their armies--probably not.

The Ukrainian army can fight the Russian army to a standstill. I would expect our army has more capabilities than the Ukrainian one.
Did you miss the part "without the US"?

Durp. Yes.

I still think European NATO has a bigger and better army than the Ukraine, and the Ukraine is fighting Russia to a standstill.

But I'm not so sure. Every time I read about, for instance, German military hardware readiness rates I wonder if they are funding a show-military or a fighting-military. But I'm super unsure about that.

johns624 · Fri Oct 28, 2022 8:02 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

The Ukrainian army can fight the Russian army to a standstill. I would expect our army has more capabilities than the Ukrainian one.
Did you miss the part "without the US"?

Durp. Yes.

I still think European NATO has a bigger and better army than the Ukraine, and the Ukraine is fighting Russia to a standstill.

But I'm not so sure. Every time I read about, for instance, German military hardware readiness rates I wonder if they are funding a show-military or a fighting-military. But I'm super unsure about that.

Same as my thoughts. I was just reading about the new Belgian-Dutch frigates. As a cost-saving measure, the Belgian ones are only going to have an 8-cell VLS, instead of the original 16 cell. This is as of last February, so maybe it's changed. Even though they will have quad-packed ESSM, for a new multi-purpose frigate (their term), that's a bit light on AA.

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Oct 28, 2022 9:23 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
johns624 wrote:
The British Empire put its money into the Royal Navy.

True, but even at Trafalger it was at a pretty serious numerical disadvantage.

My argument is the entire “peer” or “non-peer” idea is false because a lot more dictates combat outcomes than counting technology. And all of it is very hard to assess prior to the balloon goes up, which is why the balloon goes up-each side misjudges their opponents

How were the Briitish at a disadvantage at Trafalgar, Nelson was slightly outnumbered, with 27 British ships of the line to 33 of the combined French and Spanish navies, but the Royal Navy were better trained and Nelson was the superior commander. The RN dominated the conflict.

Off topic, but to answer, at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt, the English were outnumbered from 2:1 to 3:1; at all three battles the conventional wisdom was on the French and it wasn’t a “peer on peer” fight to use an anachronism. But, the unseen, prior to battle, technological change won the day along within the unaccountable factor of leadership. At Trafalger, the RN had somewhat smaller ships of the line, fewer sailors and fighters, but won the day, as you said, by superior leadership and training.

My point is the “peer” model puts too much stress on measurable technological factors and geek measurements while leaving aside imponderables that win battles and wars. Russian has some great tech which is typically measured, but it’s poor economy, lack of NCO leadership, pre-WW II logistics investment means they’re not peer to anyone in 2022. The Ukrainians are showing us that the old morale to material ratio of 3:1 might in the world of drones, cheap electronics be more like 5:1. No one last winter would have believed COTS quad rotor drones dropping grenades to kill infantry and vehicles.

Newark727 · Sat Oct 29, 2022 2:52 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
My point is the “peer” model puts too much stress on measurable technological factors and geek measurements while leaving aside imponderables that win battles and wars. Russian has some great tech which is typically measured, but it’s poor economy, lack of NCO leadership, pre-WW II logistics investment means they’re not peer to anyone in 2022. The Ukrainians are showing us that the old morale to material ratio of 3:1 might in the world of drones, cheap electronics be more like 5:1. No one last winter would have believed COTS quad rotor drones dropping grenades to kill infantry and vehicles.

I feel like a lot of the "measurable technological factors" that Russia had disappeared in a haze of post-Soviet corruption. Their top of the line stuff seems to be either far less numerous or far less effective than they claimed.

texl1649 · Mon Oct 31, 2022 9:37 am

The Koreans are the latest to invest in a future attack helicopter, with this news;

https://twitter.com/janesintel/status/1 ... 4735969280

I would say that to me that looks…very busy, visually. Whatever, it should work for the mission.

MohawkWeekend · Tue Nov 01, 2022 7:21 pm

Speaking of helo survivability - have you seen this video of a Mi-8 shoot down yesterday?
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-def ... elicopter/

What in the world was that pilot thinking not landing a soon as he was hit. Remarkable how much time he had. If this was a armored helo he might have been able to limp home.

GDB · Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:06 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Speaking of helo survivability - have you seen this video of a Mi-8 shoot down yesterday?
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-def ... elicopter/

What in the world was that pilot thinking not landing a soon as he was hit. Remarkable how much time he had. If this was a armored helo he might have been able to limp home.

Yes, the Suchominus channel posted it, with some questions, was it doing a utility mission or being pressed into gunship mode with all the KA-52 losses? Why so close for the battlefield if doing a utility tasking, the lack of training maybe due to crew attrition?

ThePointblank · Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:28 pm

GDB wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Speaking of helo survivability - have you seen this video of a Mi-8 shoot down yesterday?
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-def ... elicopter/

What in the world was that pilot thinking not landing a soon as he was hit. Remarkable how much time he had. If this was a armored helo he might have been able to limp home.

Yes, the Suchominus channel posted it, with some questions, was it doing a utility mission or being pressed into gunship mode with all the KA-52 losses? Why so close for the battlefield if doing a utility tasking, the lack of training maybe due to crew attrition?

Likely troop transport; the chatter I saw was that it was ferrying a number of new Wagner recruits around when it was hit. Roughly 20 people were onboard, only one survivor.

GDB · Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:45 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
GDB wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Speaking of helo survivability - have you seen this video of a Mi-8 shoot down yesterday?
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-def ... elicopter/

What in the world was that pilot thinking not landing a soon as he was hit. Remarkable how much time he had. If this was a armored helo he might have been able to limp home.

Yes, the Suchominus channel posted it, with some questions, was it doing a utility mission or being pressed into gunship mode with all the KA-52 losses? Why so close for the battlefield if doing a utility tasking, the lack of training maybe due to crew attrition?

Likely troop transport; the chatter I saw was that it was ferrying a number of new Wagner recruits around when it was hit. Roughly 20 people were onboard, only one survivor.

Not to be bloodthirsty so likely included released prisoners, presumably those who chose this ‘fight in Ukraine and we’ll release you’ were serving long sentences, dissents wouldn’t do it so violent criminals, including for murder etc. Along with Wangers long reputation for war crimes, no loss to the world, quite the opposite.

MohawkWeekend · Wed Nov 02, 2022 12:00 am

The Mi-8 must be a pretty tough bird - would have thought the tail rotor would have been knock out immediately.

bajs11 · Wed Nov 02, 2022 12:09 am

Just like 4th gen fighters attack helicopters also need longer range missiles to be able to survive in a war against a peer/near-peer adversary

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... this-fall/

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... for-helos/

Rafael unveiled a sixth-generation version of the Spike non-line-of-sight munition ahead of Eurosatory, a defense exhibition in Paris this week, where the firm prominently featured the weapon. The new variant has an increased range, pushing beyond 40 kilometers (25 miles) to a range of 50 kilometers (31 miles).

The Spike NLOS was selected as an interim long-range precision munition for the Army’s Apaches, but the service still wants to extend the range of the munition beyond its current capability so it can operate in degraded environments.

According to wikipedia the AGM-114 Hellfire only has a range of 11km

Kiwirob · Wed Nov 02, 2022 6:40 am

texl1649 wrote:
The Koreans are the latest to invest in a future attack helicopter, with this news;

https://twitter.com/janesintel/status/1 ... 4735969280

I would say that to me that looks…very busy, visually. Whatever, it should work for the mission.

Looks like Super Puma with additional bit and bobs randomly glued on.

9MMPQ · Sat Nov 05, 2022 10:02 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
The Mi-8 must be a pretty tough bird - would have thought the tail rotor would have been knock out immediately.

It took a hit in the area of the exhaust under the rotor so the tail rotor was the least of their problems.

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Speaking of helo survivability - have you seen this video of a Mi-8 shoot down yesterday?
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-def ... elicopter/

What in the world was that pilot thinking not landing a soon as he was hit. Remarkable how much time he had. If this was a armored helo he might have been able to limp home.

Should have put her down immediately but without armour in the area of the exhaust & top of the cabin it would have been mayhem with a mess of debris, smoke & fire penetrating the cabin. Wagner has some questionable training so i wouldn't be surprised if the pilots figured they could still limp home anyhow.

TWA772LR · Sun Nov 06, 2022 8:48 am

johns624 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Maybe…
Their air forces--yes. Their navies--maybe. Their armies--probably not.
Too late to edit, so here it is...
air forces---yes. navies...probably. armies---maybe. The inclusion of Sweden and Finland added a bunch of MBTs, which many EU militaries have let dwindle.

Not to mention the nuclear arsenals of the UK and France. Granted they absolutely are dwarfed by Russias arsenal, but I would suspect a lot of those Russian warheads aren't functional/expired. Non-US NATO could make it to Moscow in a huge concerted effort, but the Pacific is where they have a hard time with Russia. Russia would probably send the Lacific fleet through the Arctic (shortest route) but would be bound by ice breakers.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net